TS 1585 
.P3 
Copy 1 



PETITION 



OF 



STEPHEN R. PARKHURST, 



FOR 



EXTENSION OF HIS PATENT 



FOE 



aii^isri:N^a coTToisr, 



AND 



BURRING WOOL. 



! i 



NEW YORK : 

PRESS OF WYNKOOP & HALL EN BECK, 
No. 113 FuLTO.v .Street. 

! 1866. 



:M. 




PETITION 



OF 



STEPHEN R. PARlvHURST, 



FOR 



EXTENSION OF HIS PATENT 



FOE 



GMlS^I^i:^^^ COTTOISr, 



AND 



BURRING WOOL. 



NEW YORK: 

PRESS OF WYNKOOP & HAI.I. EXBECK, 
N'O. 113 FCLTON StREKI. 

1866. 



TS / sss 



H^Vi\ 



/j,4^/ 



Petition of Stephen E. Paekhurst, of Bloomfield, New 
Jersey, to the Hoxoeable the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States, in Congress 
asse.mdled, for an Act of Congress to be passed 
extending or authorizing and ejipowering the Hon- 
orable CojmissioNER of Patents of the United States, 
on due proceedings had before him, to reneav and 
extend his patent foe improvements in machines for 
ginning cotton and burring wool, for seven tears, 

FROM AND AFTER THE IST DAY OF MaY, 1866. 

Stephen R. Parkhdrst, your petitioner, would re- 
spectfully represent to your Honorable Bodies that he was 
an original inventor, and, so far as he knows or believes, 
he was the first inventor of certain improvements 
in machines for ginning cotton and burring wool, for 
which he obtained Letters Patent of the United States, 
bearing date the 1st day of May, 1845, for fourteen 
years from the date thereof, which patent was extended 
for the term of seven years from the 1st day of May, 
1859, and reissued to him on the 12th day of February, 
1801, for the purpose of correcting and amending certain 
defects in the original specification and claims, which 
had been inadvertently made therein. 

The object of this invention, as indicated by its title, 
is to remove the burrs and other foreign substances 
from wool before carding, thereby preventing damage to 
the card clothing, and effecting great saving in labor 
and material, and to free cotton from seeds and other 
substances injurious to the staple, thereby materially 
enhancing its value. 



The machinery for taking the burrs anJ other foreign 
substances from wool, called burring machinery, is 
designed and adapted to be used both separately and 
in combination with a common carding machine. When 
used in combination with a carding machine, as it gen- 
erally is, the burr cylinder is placed next the feed 
rollers, and, revolving with greater surface velocity than 
the feed rollers, draws the unburred wool from between 
them on to plain surfaces, between narrow, toothed, or 
serrated steel rings, placed upon a light, hol'ovv, rigid, 
metallic cylinder, called a burr cylinder : the plain 
surfiices, being somewhat less in diameter than the ser- 
rated rings, allow the material to be d' awn below the 
periphery of the steel rings on to the plain surfaces, and 
leave the burrs on top to be knocked OiT by a revolving 
guard over the burr cylinder into a trash receptacle in 
front. The wool, bei"g tht's freed from burrs, is 
stripped from the burr cyl'nder in the rear by a rapidly 
revolving card-clothed cylinder of tlie cai'ding machine, 
and passes on through the machine in the ordinary 
process of carding. 

Previously to my invention, various attempts had 
been made, especially on burrv wool, to devise some 
means whereby the bnrrs could be removed and the 
wool rendered serviceable for manufacturing purposes, 
but with only partial success. And at the time of the 
introduction of my machines into use, the old hand 
modes of picking the Imrrs from the wool by hand, or 
cutting them out with common sheep-shears, was gen- 
erally resorted to. But these modes were slow, tedious, 
expensive, and unreliable, and wool which was very 
burry, especially foreign wools of this description, was 



only used to a very limiteil extent in this country, in 
consequence of the great difficulty and expense incurred 
in removing the burrs. 

I had been a practical woolen manufacturer for many 
years, having been brought up at the business ; and, for 
some years prior to the date of my original patent, had 
been more or less engaged in experiments, endeavoring 
to perfect machinery which would completely remove 
the burrs from wool and the seeds from cotton. 

My inventions, patented as before stated, are the 
result of these labors, and from which I had hoped, before 
this time, to derive a reasonable remuneration for the 
time, labor, and expense bestowed by me upon them, 
and in introducing them into public use, but which I 
have failed to do ; and this failure has not been owing 
to any fault, neglect, or want of effort on my [)art, but 
has been solely dae to causes and circumstaucL's beyond 
my control, and whicii it was impossible for me to fore- 
see, avoid, or prevent. 

To enable your Honorable Body to understand the 
merits of this application, and to act intelligibly upon 
it, permit me to state, somewhat in detail, tlie grounds 
upon whicii it is made, and the material facts connected 
with it 

At the time my patent was originally granted, I had 
exiiaustsd, to a very great extent, my pecuniary means 
in efforts to perfect the invention and procure the 
patent, and was, therefore, unable to incur the 
large outlay and expense requisite in erecting 
machinery, building machines, and putting them into 
the market, especially as the machine iiad not yet 



worked itsc]f into public favor, and found it desirable to 
associate with me some other person with means suffi- 
cient to meet these necessary expenses. Accordingly, 
on the 22(1 day of May, 1845 — twenty-two days after 
the original patent was granted — I assigned one-third 
part of the patent to Israel Kinsman, of New York, and 
associated him with me in the business of making and 
selling the machines. On the same day. Kinsman 
assigned, one-half of his one-third, being one-sixth of the 
whole, to James W. Hale, also of New York, for the 
same price and on the same terms that he had paid me 
for the one-third, thereby clearing his remaining one- 
sixth of the whole. Soon after these transfers, Kinsman 
and I commenced building these machines in Vesey 
street. New York ; and in the fall of that year I went 
to Europe to attend to taking out patents tliere, leaving 
Kinsman to manage the business here, and Warren 
Holt, whom I appointed my attorney, to attend to my 
interests. 

On the 9th of February, 1S46, owing to disagree- 
ments between Kinsman and myself, an agreement in 
writing, prepared by Kinsman, was entered into 
between us, effecting, in part, a settlement of our part- 
nership matters, whereby Kinsman was authorized to 
make and sell machines until he had been reimbursed 
his advances to the concern, and providing that he 
should then discontinue, and that I should thereafter 
have the exclusive right to make and sell the machines, 
each party accounting to the other for one hundred dol- 
lars profit on every machine. 

Hall was not a party to this agreement, but was cog- 
nizant of it, and it was understood that his interest was 



ingrafted upon, and went with, Kinsman's, and that he 
should share with Kinsman the profits derived from 
making and selling the machines, and that Kinsman 
would continue to carry on the business in Vesey street 
as before, until he should be reimbursed for his advances, 
and would then give up the business to me. But on the 
very next day after executing this agreement, Kinsman, 
though remonstrated with, and forbidden by my agent, 
removed the tools and machinery from the shop in 
Vesey street. New York, to Paterson, New Jersey (most 
of which belonged to me individually), and sold, or pre- 
tended to have sold, them to his confederate, one 
William Cundell, of that place. 

Kinsman, in connection with Cundell, then continued 
to manufacture and sell these machines for a lone: time 
thereafter, and until long after he had been reimbursed 
for all his advances. He was requested to discontinue 
and leave the manufacture and 'sale of the machines to 
me, as provided in the agreement, but refused so to do, 
and continued to make and sell the machines, and to 
appropriate all the proceeds to his own use, or to share 
them with his confederate Cundell, and refused to 
account for, or pay over, any of them to me, or to give 
any information in relation thereto, denying that I had 
any rights in the invention, and claiming that he was 
the sole owner thereof. 

In February, 1S47, 1 caused a suit for an injunction 
and an account to be commenced against him, where- 
upon he repudiated my invention, and insisted that one 
Charles G. Sargeant, of Lowell, Massachusetts, was the 
first and original inventor, and claimed that he (Kins- 
man) had been operating under the Sargeant invention. 



and not uncl>;r mine. Considerable delay ensued before 
an application for an injunction could be made against 
him, and in the meantime Kinsman succeeded in selling 
a very large number of the machines in various parts 
of the country, and many of them on long credit. 

After the argument of the motion for a preliminary 
injunction, and before the decision of the court, Kins- 
man, as he claimed, executed an assignment in writing, 
dated June 30, 1S47, whereby he pretended to convey 
his interest in the invention (and whicii he then called 
the Sargeant invention) to his clerk, Calvin L. God- 
dard. 

The preliminary injunction was granted against 
Kinsman on the 3d of July, 1S47. 

Thereafter, Goddard, nominally under his pretended 
right derived from Kinsman, went on with tlie manu- 
facture and sale of the machines to a larn-e extent. 

A supplemental bill was then filed, and Goildard made 
a party, and a preliminary injunction against him was 
applied for and granted. Tlic case came on for hear- 
ing, on pleadings and proofs, in May, 1S49, and was 
elaborately argued on both sides before a full bench. 

At the October term of the court, in 184 9, Mr. Jus- 
tice Melson delivered the opinion of the court, holding 
that I was the first and original inventor, and that my 
patent was good and valid, and that the defendants, 
Kinsman and Goddard, had infringed it. 

The case is reported in 1 Blatchford C. C. Reports, 

page 4SS, and at page 494 the court says : 

" I am satisfied that the proofs establish, beyond all reasonable 
'• doiibf,, tliat Pai-khurst, the i>laiiititf in the bill, »vas the first 
"and ori;,'iiial inventor ot the iniproveinerit in the burring 



"niafliine, for which Lc-tters Puleiit were granted to him on 
"the 1st of May, 1845 ; that the improvement of Sargeant, 
"mainly relied on as anterior in time, was neitlier so f;ir per- 
"fected by experiment, norby arednction to practical operation, 
"as to entitle it, in judgment of law, to the character or attri- 
" bute of an invention ; and, alr>o, that the imperfect and 
"unsatisfiictory nature of tlie experiments made by Sargeant, 
"and his subsequent conduct in throwing aside his temporary 
"model, and wlioUy neglecting for years to follow up his 
" experiments, so as to produce a perfect machine, affords 
"strong and decisive evidence of an abandonment of the thing 
" as a failure." 

At page 496 the court says : 

"I am also of opinion tliat the change in the form of the. 
" slots or teeth cut on tlie rings or plates which composed the 
" burring cylinder, and wliich, it is claimed, were made by 
"Kinsman or others subsequent to the date of the patent, and 
" in the course of the manufacturing of the article, was not a 
"substantial change in the construction from that described in 
" the patent." 

A decree of reference was rendered in October, 1849, 
and pursuant thereto the master stated the account 
and made his report. A final decree on the report of 
the master, adjudging the amount due, directing pay- 
ment, &c., was entered against Kinsman and Goddard, 
at the April term of the court, in 1S51. 

On the IGth day of September, 1S54, an appeal was 
taken by Kinsman and Goddard, from the Circuit to 
the Supreme Court of the United States, on the decree 
entered in October, 1849, and the decree entered in 
May, 1851. Tliis appeal was argued at the December 
term of the Supreme Court in 185-5, and the decree in 
the court below was affirmed with costs and interest. 

Tlie opinion of the Supreme Court is at page 290,, 
volume xviii. of Howard's Reports. 



10 

In 1848, Kinsman, having procured an assignment 
of the alleged Sargeant invention, caused an applica- 
tion to be made at the Patent Office for a patent. An 
interference was thereupon declared between this appli- 
cation and my patent. A large amount of testimony 
was taken in the case, much expense incurred, argu- 
ments haJ, and the decision rendered in my favor. 

The patent having been extended on the 1st of ]\Iay, 
1S59, and reissued on the liith of February, 1861, was 
assigned by me to Francis Jlorris, Charles A. Buckley, 
and Robert W. Russell on the ISth of April, 1861. 

Immediately after this re-issue, and as soon as com- 
petent evidence could be obtained of the continued 
^infringements of the patent by said Calvin L. GodJard 
and bis partner, Charles E. HofTaian, and as early as the 
2l8t of May, 1861, a suit was commenced by the owners 
of said patent, in the Circuit Court of the United States 
tor the Southern District of New York, against said 
Goddard & Hoffman for their infringements of the patent 
by the manufacture j),nd sale of said machines. Other 
suits were commenced jn t'le same court, about the 
same time, against the Seamless Clothing Manufactur- 
ing Company, and John Falconer; against the Glen- 
ham Company and Russel Dart ; against Edward 
Haigh ; against John W, Stitt and Benjamin Under- 
bill 5 against Elias S. Higgins and Nathaniel D. Hig- 
^ns; and in the United States Circuit Court for the 
District of Connecticut, against the Mill River Woolen 
Manufacturing Company and others ; against Henry 
Hol'lister-; against Nelson Kingsbury, and against one 
Frank B. Loomis. All of these parties, except God- 
dard ^J Hoffmap; were users of the burring machines 



11 

which liad been manufactured and sold by said GodJard 
and his partner. The defendants in all tiiese suits, 
except the one against the Messrs. Higgins and Loomis, 
appeared by counsel and filed answers. 

The answers, among other things, denied that your 
petitioner was the original or first inventor of the inven- 
tions patented, or of any of them; and alleged that, 
prior to said invention, the same had been known and 
publicly used in this country by numerous other parties, 
and that numerous prior patents had been granted to 
different parties for the same inventions, or substantial 
parts thereof. That among the parties who had such 
prior knowledge of said inventions, and who had pub- 
licly used the same, were Michael H. Simpson, the 
Saxonville Mills, Milton D. Whipple, Charles G. Sar- 
geant, William W. Calvert, Alanson Crane, Francis A. 
Calvert, and Charles W. Brown, all at or near Boston, in 
the State of Ma-isachusetts ; and Roland G. Hazzard and 
Samuel Rodman, t)f Rhode Island ; and George Bradley 
and William Cundell, of Paterson, New Jersey ; and 
Samuel Coulard, Jr., and John Schl}', deceased ; and 
were also patented in the following-named patents : 
A patent to Eli Whitney, dated in 179i ; a patent to 
^Michael H. Simpson, in lS3o; a patent to Charles W. 
Brown and Josiah Wolcott, Jr., dated in 1S37; a patent 
to John Sclily, dated in 1S3G; apatentto Milton D.Whip- 
ple, dated in 1S40, subsequently reissued and extended; 
a patent to William W. Calvert and Alanson Crane, 
in 184 1 ; a patent to Francis Calvert, in 1813 ; and in a 
patent to Lewis G. Sturdevant, in ISll. 

A very large amount of testimony was taken in these 
suits, amounting, on the part of the defendants, to seven 



12 

hundred and thirty-five printed pages, and on the part 
of the complainants to one hundred and ninety-nine 
printed pages, besides a large number of documents 
and papers both printed and manuscript, extending over 
a term of three or four years in taking said testimony. 
The cases in the Southern District of New York came 
to hearing, on pleadings and proofs before Mr. Justice 
Nelson, in August, 1S64, several days being occupied in 
the hearing thereof. They were fully and ably argued 
before the court by George Giflbrd, Esq., of New York, 
for thecomi^lainants, and by Charles L.Woodbnry, Esq., 
of Boston, for the defendants. The cases were after- 
ward held under a Jvisement by the court until May, 
1SG5, when a decision was rendered by the court in 
each case, deciding that your petitioner was the original 
and first inventor of the improvements patented ; that 
said patent is good and valid, and that the defendants 
had infringed the same. Tlie decree of the court in the 
case against Goddard & Hoffman is in the words and 
figures following, that is toi say : 

'"At a Stated Term of tlie Circuit Court of the United States Of 
"America, for tlie Soutlieru District of Now York, iu the 
" Second Circuit, held at the City Hall, in the city of Nesv 
" Yorlv, on the twenty-third day of May, iu the year of our 
'"Lord one thousand eij;ht hundred and sixty-five, 
" Present — The Honorable Samuel Nelsox, an Associate Justice 
" of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

: ^ 



'Fe.vnoi8 Morris, Charles A. Bulkley and 
"Robert W. Rcs8ell 



agst. I 



" Calvin L. Goddard and Charles E. IIoff- 

" MAN. 



" The above-enliJed suit, coming on to be heard on pleadings 
" and proofs therein ; and George Giflbrd, Esq., of counsel for 



13 



" the comiilainants therein, having been heard by tlie court in 
" their behalf; and Charles L. Woodbury, Esq., of counsel for 
"the defendants therein, having been heard by the court in 
" their behalf; and the Court having duly deliberated and con- 
" sidered upon the matters at issue between the parties in said 
'• suit, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Stephen 
" R. Parkhurst, mentioned in the bill of complaint in this suit, 
" was and is the original and first inventor of certain improve- 
" ments in machinery for ginning cotton and burring wool, 
" and of each and every of said improvements, described and 
" patented in and by certain Letters Patent of the United States 
" to said Parkhurst, dated the 12th day of February, 1861, on 
" which this suit is brought ; that said patent is good and valid ; 
"that the complainants now are, and ever sinci! the 18th day 
" of April, 1801, have been, the sole and exclusive owners there- 
"of, and of the inventions and improvements granted and 
"secured thereby; and that said inventions are, and each of 
"them is, of great utility and value ; and .that the defendants 
"have infringed said patent. 

" It is hereby further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that an 
"injunction do issue out of this court, indue form of law, 
" against the defendants in the above-entitled suit, restraining 
."and enjoining the said defendants, and each of them, in said 
" suit, pursuant to, and in accordance witli, the prayer of the 
"bill of coni[)laint filed in this suit; and that said injunction 
"be, and the same hereby is, declared to be final and per- 
" petnal. 

" And it is hereby further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
" it be referred to Kenneth G. White, Esq., or R. E. Stilwell, 
" Esq., Master of this court, residing in the city of New York, 
" ill said district, to ascertain, and take, and state, and report 
" to this court an account of the gains and profits which the 
" said defendants, Calvin L. Goddard and Cbailes E. IIofFman, 
" and each of them, have realised, or received, or become 
" entitled to, or which have arisen or accrued to them, or 
" either of them, since the 18tli day of April, 1861, from the 
" manufacture, use, or sale of machines or machinery using or 
''-employing said inventions and improvements, or any or either 
" of them, or any part thereof, meniioned in said bill of com- 



14 



" plaint ; and that said complainants have the right, on such 
'' accounting, to cause an examination of the defendants, and 
" each of them, ore tenus, and the production of their, and 
" each of their books, vouchers, and documents, before said 
" Master ; and that said defendants attend from time' to time 
" before said Master, all as said Master shall direct, and that 
" the consideration of all other and further questions be 
" reserved until the coming in of said report." 

" S. NELSON." 

The decrees in the other suits against the users of 
the machines were substantially the same as the above, 
varying only as to names of parties and titles of cases. 

Pursuant to the foregoing decree, the defendant God- 
dard, in August last, was summoned to file a verified 
account in writing, before the Master, of the burring 
machines which he and the defendant Hoffman, or either 
of them, had made and sold since the ISth day of April, 
1861, and also to produce before said Master their books 
of account, which account was required to be filed, and 
said books produced before the Master, on or before the 
14th day of September, 1865. Great delay occurred 
in preparing and filing this account, and it was not got 
ready and filed until the 20th day of February, 1S66, 
and not until an application to the court had been made 
for an attachment against Goddard, as for a contempt, in 
not complying with the said summons by filing the 
account. Tlie court postponed this motion until the 20th 
of February, 1866, and allowed Goddard until that time 
to file said account. The books of account have not 
yet been produced, and the accounting is still delayed, 
and along time will yet be required to complete said 
accounting, and ascertain the gains and profits which 
said Goddard & Hoflfman bave realized and received 
from their unauthorized use of said inventions. 



15 

From said verified account filed with the Master by 
said Goddard as above stated, it appears that, between the 
20th day of April ] SGl.and the I7th day of June, 1865, he 
and his partner made and sold sixteen hundred and thirty- 
six burring machines and burring cylinders, using and 
employing the said inventions of your petitioner; and that 
they sold the same for the aggregate sum of one hundred 
and forty-one thousand five hundred and twenty-nine 
dollars and seventy-nine cents ; and that between the 
same dates they made and sold about one hundred 
and thirty more of said burr cylinders in combination 
with burr-picking or burr-cleaning machines, which are 
claimed in said account to have been sold for cost, but 
the sums for which the latter machines were sold are not 
mentioned in said account. And your petitioner states 
on information and belief that said so-called burr-pick- 
ng machines have been sold at a price varying from 
eight hundred to one thousand dollars apiece. 

That they use and employ in their construction and 
operation the burring apparatus patented by him, as 
above stated, and are a plain and palpable infringement 
upon said nnfpnf . nnrl fhat they derive tlieir chief value 
from said improvements, gajd Goddard claims in said 
account that he has a right to add to the cost of said 
sixteen hundred and thirty-six burring machines and 
burring cylinders a manufacturer's profit of fifty per 
cent, as due to him on the gross sales thereof, and that 
the difference between the cost of said machines and 
cylinders with the fifty percent, profit thus added, and the 
sales prices of said machines, ia due not to the aforesaid 
inventions of your petitioner, but to other improvements 
which other parties have made. The claim and pre- 



16 

tense that these machhies derive their chief utility and 
value from inventions other tlian those of your petitioner' 
have been persistently urged as one of the main 
leading defenses to this patent ever since it was set up 
by Kinsman and said Goddard in the suit against them, 
commenced in Februarj^ 1847, but this defense has 
heretofore amounted to nothing but expense and delay, 
and it is not believed that it will answer any other 
purpose on said accounting. 

About thirty-five witnesses were examined in each 
of these suits on the part of the defendants, and thir- 
teen on the part of the complainants. The defendants' 
witnesses, being called mainly to prove want of novelty 
and utility in the machines patented by your petitioner, 
were principally examined as to those points. And on 
their examination some of them testified as follows : 

LEWIS RIPLEY, a witness for the defendants, of 
North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, testified that he was 
sixty years of age ; that he was a woolen manufacturer 
and machinist, and had been in that business for over 
forty years; and that he was familiar with all kinds of 
woolen machinery, and with the_ machines in general 
use througliout the country for removing burrs from 
wool. 

Being under cross-examination, at Boston, January 14, 
1S62, he was asked, and answered, as follows : 

Cross Inlcrrogatorij 41. — State whether or not these 
Parkhurst burring machines have generally superseded 
all other kinds? 

A. These Parkhurst machines are gradually and 
surely superseding all others, perhaps not from choice, 
but from necessity. 



17 



Cross IiUerrogatory 42. — Do you regard them as indis- 
pensable to have in the business ? 
A. I do. 

Cross Interrogatory 43. — State whether or not you 
have an extended acquaintance among woolen manu- 
facturers using these machines in their business, and 
how extensive ? 

A. My acquaintance extends more or less from Vir- 
ginia to the Canada line ; I have put these Parkhurst 
buriuig machines in operation in most of the principal 
woolen manufactories throughout the woolen manufac- 
turing States. 

Cross Interrogatory 44. — State whether the machines 
have generally given good satisfaction to the parties 
using them, so far as you know ? 

A. Perfect ; not one was thrown out, to my knowl- 
edge, after I commenced with them. 

Cross Interrogatory 45. — About what amount of sav- 
ing of the staple do they effect over machines in use for 
burring wool prior to 1845, so far as you know? 

A. I have taken a given quantity of wool, by no 
means heavy, and run it through a Calvert burring 
machine ; the loss was twenty-six per cent. ; the same 
kind and quantity of wool put through the Parkhurst 
machine would have weighed, after passing through the 
machine, its original weight, less the burrs. 

LEANDER P. COBB, of Worcester, Massachusetts, 
a witness for the defendants, fifty-nine years of age, and 
a machinist, who had been engaged in building woolen 



18 

machinery for many years, he'mg under cross-craminalion 
on the 21st of March, 1S62, was asked, and answered, as 
follows : 

Cro.ts Interrogalorij 41. — State how the sec5ond Park- 
hurst cylinder did its work at the Fox Mills. 

A. I don't see but it did its work as well as they 
have made since ; they had six sets of cards, and put a 
Parkhurst burr cylinder on the first breaker of each set ; 
it worked very well. 

Cross Interrogatory 42. — About how long after the 
first Parkhurst burr cylinder had been procured at the 
Fox Mills before the other five were procured ? 

A. They came probably as fast as they could make 
them ; can't tell how long. 

Cross Inten-ogalory 43. — Did they give good satis- 
faction t 

A. Yes ; I never heard any complaint. 

CHARLES T. BARKER, another witness for the 
defendants, an extensive woolen manufacturer in Massa- 
chusetts, being under examination in chief by the 
defendants' counsel, on the 23d day of September, 
1853, was asked, and answered, as follows : 

Interrogatory 13. — Whether you regard the burr cylin- 
der attached lo a carding machine as being necessary 
to secure sufficient separation of the burrs from the 
wool, where an independent burring machine is used 2 

A. We use them, and we consider it necessary — not 
absolutely necessary, but a convenience. 

Interrogatory 14. — Please explain more fully? 

A. If the wool is very burry, it would be absolutely 



19 

necessary ; but if the wool was not very burry, it 
would not be necessary — it would be a matter of con- 
venience ; it is a good way of putting the wool on to 
the card, and we use them. 

On the cross-examination 'of this witness by the com- 
plainant's counsel, he stated that his firm has seven 
sets of carding machines in use, and has a Parkhurst 
burring cylinder on every set; that they have so used 
tliem for fifteen years ; that they work well ; that the 
burring apparatus was procured of Calvin L. Goddard ; 
and that such burring apparatus was in general use on 
carding machines throughout tlie country. 

DAVID LANE, another witness for the defendants, 
a machinist doing business at Lowell, who has long 
been engaged in building woolen machinery, was asked, 
and answered, as follows, on his o-oss-ci-amiiiation : 

Cross Interrogatoiij, 14. — About how many ring burr 
cylinders have you seen on carding machines ? 

A. I could not state the number ; I have seen a good 
many. 

Cross Interrogatory, 15. — State whether or not, so far 
as you know, they are generally used on carding 
machines ? 

A. I think they are. 

JOHN GARDNER, Treasurer of the Salisbury Mills, 
Massachusetts, was also examined as a witness for the 
defendants. He states that he has superintended the 
woolen manufactory of that company since 1846 ; that 
they employ fifty-six sets of carding machines, and that 
burring cylinders are combined " with most of them, if 



20 

not all," and that they " do not consider a carding 
machine complete without a burring cylinder." And in 
reply to tlie question, " State whether or not, so far as 
j'ou know, burr cylinders are generally used on carding 
machines?" he says "I think they are." 

JAMES M SH A RP, another witness for the defend- 
ants, residing in North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, 
states that he has been engaged in the woolen manufac- 
turing business for twenty-five years ; that he is super- 
intendent for the Baldwin Manufacturing Company, and 
is familiar with Parkhurst's machines ; that that com- 
pany has eleven of these machines in use ; and that they 
prevent all the burrs, but not all t/tc dirt, from passing to the 
card cylinders. 

MICHAEL H. SIMPSON, another large woolen manu- 
facturer of Massachusetts, was also examined as a wit- 
ness for the defendants, to prove that the Parkhurst 
burring machines were neither new nor useful. On his 
cross-examination he stated that he had used these cylin- 
ders on his carding machines ever since 1851 or 1852, 
and had substituted these Parkhurst machines for what 
he called his " card burrers." 

This witness is principal owner of the Sixonville 
Mills, Massachusetts, and was one of the persons mainly 
relied upon by the defendants to prove both want of 
novelty and utility in the machines of your petitioner. 

JOHN R. CLARK, another witness for the defend- 
ants, who had been engaged in the woolen manufacture 
for forty years, and with Michael H. Simpson for twen- 
ty-one years, states that he never knew a burr cylinder 



2] 

to be useil in combination with a carding machine until 
1847, and that this was the Parlchurst burr cylinder. 

JOHN GIBBS, another witness for the defendants, 
states that he had been ensrarred in the woolen manu- 
facture for about thirty-one years, and that he had 
most of the time been in the employ of Michael H. 
Simpson ; that he never knew of a burr cylinder being 
used in combination with a carding machine until 1847 
or 1848. This was one of Parkhurst's. 

FOSTER NOWELL, another witness for the defend- 
ants, has for many years worked in a woolen factory, 
and is carder and spinner in the Lowell Company Carpet 
Mills, states that he never knew of a burring machine 
being combined with a carding machine until 1845. 
This was a Parkhurst machine. 

LEWIS RIPLEY, another witness for the defendants, 
whose testimony has before been referred to, states that 
he never knew of a burring machine being used in com- 
bination with a carding machine until 1845, and that 
this was a Parkhurst machine. 



The foregoing is some of the testimony on the part 
of the defendants, taken from their own record in the 
suits above mentioned, and fully establishes the facts (as 
shown by the defendants themselves) that the burring 
machines of your petitioner are of great utility and value, 
and have gone into general use, and are gradually but 
surely, superseding all other machines as the best means 
for removing the burrs and other foreign substances from 
wool before carding ; and that he was the first to com- 
bine a burring apparatus with a carding machine, sa 



23 



that the burring and carding process could be carried on 
by combined and continuous operations, tiiereby saving 
time, labor, and expense, and dispensing with the imper- 
fect and cumbrous contrivances formerly in use for 
taking the burrs out of wool. 

The decree of the court above granted also establishes 
beyond question that your petitioner was the original 
and first inventor of the inventions patented, and that 
ihe patent is good and valid. 

Since said decree was rendered, numerous suits have 
been brought against parties infringing said patent by 
their unauthorized use of burrinc; machines which had 
been made and sold by said, Goddard ; and many of 
these suits arestill pending and undetermined, and much 
time and money will be required in prosecuting them to 
completion ; and this, too, under the embarrassing dis- 
advantage of not being able to arrest infringements by 
injunctions, but allowing the defendants to continue 
their use of the infringing machines with impunity, not 
only after the 1st of May next, when the patent 
expires, but also during the intermediate time. The 
law is well settled in this country, as I am advised by 
George GifTord, Esq., of New York, my counsel, that 
the court cannot grant an injunction in a patent case 
after the patent expires, and that it is a mere matter of 
discretion whether the court will grant a preliminary 
injunction during the continuance of the patent. 

Applications have recently been made to the United 
States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 
being held by Judge Lowell, in Boston, for preliminary 
injunctions to be graiated in suits just commenced 



23 

against the Lowell Manufacturing Company, the 
Boston Manufacturing Company, the Tremont Mills, 
and the Lawrence Manufacturing Company, for 
infringements of your petitioner's said patent by 
their unauthorized use of a large number of said 
burring machines, which had been made and sold by 
said Goddard in infringement of my patent. The 
defendants in these suits appeared by counsel, argu- 
ments were had, occupying several days, and many 
affidavits were read to the court by the defendants, 
mainly tending to siiow that the burning apparatus 
which the defendants had in use in combination with 
their carding machines was indispensable to be used in 
their business for removing the burrs from wool ; that 
the press of business in their establishments was very 
great ; and that the burning apparatus could not be 
removed from their carding machines without great 
labor, expense, and trouble ; and that suitable machin- 
ists were preoccupied with work to such an extent 
that it would require many months before the defend- 
ants could have the necessary alterations made in their 
machines ; and, moreover, that a large number of 
laborers would be tlirown out of employment in their 
establishments in the meantime. The court, on tlie 
authorit}'' of the sewing machine case of Elias Howe, 
Jr. vs. Williams, in the district of Massachusetts, decided 
by Judge Sprague, March 8, 1860, where an applica- 
tion for a preliminary injunction was denied a few 
montlis before the expiration of the Howe patent, on 
the ground of the short time the patent had to run, 
denied the applications in these cases on tiie same 
ground ; viz., that the patent had so nearly expired 
that the court would not be warranted in enjoining the 



24 

defendants meantime from their infringements thereof, 
or expressing no doubt as to the validity of the patent, 
or the rights of the complainants to ultimately recover ■ 
of the defendants in the suits. It will, therefore, be 
necessary to proceed to final hearing, on pleadings and 
jiroofs, in each of these cases, before any recovery can 
be bad ; and with the uncertain prospect of recovering 
in the end an amount sufficient to cover the costs 
and expenses of prosecuting the cases to a successful 
termination ; especially when it is considered that the 
cases may be taken separately, by appeal, to the 
Supreme Court of the United States, 

A very large number of burring machines which 
have been made and sold by said Groddard in infringe- 
ment of my patent are now being used by various 
infringers in different parts of the country, and espe- 
cially in the State of Massachusetts, and in other New 
England States. These machines are in daily use, and 
are in direct and palpable violation and infringement of 
said patent ; and the only way in which remuneration 
can now be obtained from these infringers is by bringing 
suits against them separately, and prosecuting the suits 
to final terminations ; and this, too, without the potent 
aid of injunctions, either preliminary or perpetual, and 
with the uncertainty of recovering sufficient in the 
end to reimburse for the costs and expenses required 
in carrying on the litigations. I have uniformly offered 
to settle with parties using these machines, and to 
give them a license under the patent on equally liberal 
terms, such as have been accepted and paid by other 
parties infringing the patent. But most of these 
infringers have declined to make settlements ; and they 



yo 



have been greatly encouraged in this course from circu- 
lars and letters of said Goddard, rep resenting that the 
patent will expire in May next ; and advising parties 
infringing not to settle or pay for their infringements, 
and to give no a ttention whatever to the claims made 
against them therefor. And since said recent decisions 
in Boston, the difficulty of making collections for said 
infringements has been greatly increased, owing to the 
impossibility of obtaining preliminary injunctions in 
Massachusetts, restraining infringements of said patent. 

From the foregoing statements it will be seen that 
during the whole period of my patent, including both 
the original and the extended term thereof, incessant 
litigations and expenses have attended it, and that a 
large amount of litigation, without the aid of injunc- 
tions, is still to be carried on, if outstanding claims 
against infringers are collected. It will also appear 
from the foregoing stateraants that my burring ma- 
chines are in common and general use througiiout the 
woolen manufacturing States, and that they have uni- 
formly superseded all other means for extracting the 
burrs from wool, causing great saving of time, labor, 
expense, and material, and tliat the patent has been 
repeatedly and uniformly adjudged by the United States 
courts to be good and valid. And it has also been 
decided by thesame courts, in numerous cases, that burr- 
ing machines, the same in construction and operation as 
hundreds of those now in unauthorized use throughout 
the country, were clear and palpable infringements 
upon my said patent, and injunctions have been 
granted restraining said infringements. 

The patent, as before stated, was extended May 1, 
1859. Not long after its extension, application was 



26 

made to the Honorable Commissioner of Patents for a 
reissue of it, in order to correct material defects which 
had been inadvertently made in the specification and 
claims thereof. Considerable delay occurred at the 
Patent Office, so that the reissue was not granted until 
the 12th day of February, 1S61. 

After obtaining the extension in 1S59, the unsettled 
and threatening state of affairs in the Cottvin States, 
where alone a market could be found for the sale of the 
machines for ginning cotton, rendered their continued 
introduction and sale there impracticable, and com- 
pletely closed the market for these machines, which 
market has remained closed until very recently ; so 
that little, if anything, has been realized from the 
manufacture and sale of machines in these States since 
the patent was extended. Previously to its extension, 
large numbers of these machines had been made and 
sold, aud were in successful use in many parts of 
the South ginning cotton, and gave very general satis- 
faction to the parties using tliem. At the time the war 
broke out, in 1861, large sums of money were due on 
account of machines which had been sold to parties resid- 
ing in the Cotton States, amounting in the aggregate, 
as nearly as I can now ascertain, to from sixty to 
seventy thousand dollars. Nothing has been realized from 
this amount, and probably nothing ever will be, without 
incurring more expense in making the collections than 
the sums received will warrant. I have no doubt that, if 
the market for the sale of these machines had remained 
open at the South during the extended term of the 
patent, the demand therefor would have gradually and 
constantly increased, and that large gains and profits 



27 

would have been derived therefrom. But, as before 
stated, little or nothing lias been derived from this 
source since the extension of the patent. 

On the application for an extension of my patent in 
1S59, a statement and account in writing, under oath, 
was furnished by me to the Honorable Commis- 
sioner of Patents, of the ascertained value of my 
invention, exhibiting in detail my receipts and expendi- 
tures in relation thereto ; showing that, during the 
original term of the patent, I had realized between 
eleven and twelve thousand dollars therefrom, over and 
above my expenses in relation thereto, not allowing 
any compensation, however, for my own services, which 
had been given to matters pertaining to said inventions, 
almost exclusively, during a greater portion of the term 
of the original patent ; and that if these services were 
taken into account, and a reasonable allowance made 
therefov, I had realized absolutely nothing for the 
inventions ; though, as proved by numerous affidavits on 
said application, said inventions were of very great 
public value, some of the witnesses estimating the 
value thereof to the public as high as one million 
dollars.';' 

These affidavits are somewhat numerous and volumi- 
nous ; but I beg leave herewith to call the attention of 
your Honorable Bodies to brief extracts from some of 
them, inasmuch as the facts and considerations therein 
set forth are more or less material and pertinent on this 
application, especially to show the great value of the 
inventions to the public, the earnest endeavors which I 
had made to realize something from them, my utter 
fiiilure so to do, and some of the causes of such foilure. 



2S 

WILLIAM L.KINGj then one of the firm of Naylor & 
Co., No. 99 John street, in the city of New York, in his 
affidavit, sworn to on the 14th day of February, 1859, 
states that he has been acquainted witli your petitioner 
since ISIG : 

"That he has beoii familiar with tlie difficulties said Park- 
" hurst lias contended against in the introdnctinn of burring 
" machines under said patent ; that he does verily believe said 
"Parkhurst has used due diligence in endeavoring to introduce 
"and make profit by his said invention; that ho believes the 
"said Parkhurst has pursued the said business with energy, 
" perseverance, and discretion, and availed himself of every 
" opportunity to make profit therefrom. 

" That he is personally knowing to the v.alue and importance 
" of this machine to the public, and does verily believe that the 
" same has been of immense value to the manufacturing inter- 
" ests of the country, particularly the woolen ; that, from the 
" saving by the use of machines under the aforesaid patent, 
"over and above the machines previously in use, he believes 
"the country has been benefited to an incalculable extent; 
"and this deponent should estimate that a million of dollars 
"would not exceed the benefit this machine has been to the 
•' public. 

"That the durability of machines built under the patent in 
"question is such that, when manufacturers are once supplied, 
" but little demand arises for new machines, except for new 
" establisliments; and he does also verily believe that Israel 
"Kinsman and Calvin L. Goddard did put into the market 
"burring machines under such circumstances as to supply the 
"demands of manufacturers, and deprive said Parkhurst of 
"pecuniary benefit; and that said machines, having run for 
" years, and most of tliem being still in working urder, has 
"limited the sale of machines, and impaired Parkhurst's bnsi- 
" ness and profits." 

This witness had been in part owner of the patent 
from ISiS until lS-51, when he sold out his interest to 
Parkhurst. 



29 

NATHANIEL R. PARKHURST, of Worcester, 
Massachusetts, in his affidavit, sworn to on the 8th day 
of March, 1859, states: 

" That about eight years ago he purchased two machines 
" uailer the above-named patent for burring and cleaning wool ; 
"that he had the same in use ever since, together with a third 
" macliine, purchased about two years since; that the above- 
" named two machines have been in constant use for about 
" eight years, without perceptible wear; and this deponent has 
" never had to repair said machines in the least, and he does 
" verily believe that the same will last sixteen or seventeen 
"years longer, making a total time for the wearing out of said 
" cylinders of at least twenty -five years. 

" That this deponent has been in the woolen manufacture for 
" over twenty years, and was in the habit of using the old bur- 
"ring machines; that the introduction of Parkhurst's steel 
"ring burring machines has been of very great benefit — 

'^ First, in preventing the wear formerly in the burring 
"machines themselves. 

"Second, in preventing the wear on the carding machines, 
"because the wool is taken so much freer from burrs and 
"foreign matters that the cards are not injured. 

" Third, in decreasing the number of carding machines, be- 
" cause the fibre, by Parkhurst's barring machine, is straight- 
"ened out so much better that less carding is required. 

" That this deponent does verily believe that s.aid machines 
"have paid for themselves every year, over and above the cost 
" for doing the same work by the most approved machines 
"prior to their introduction; hence, that he verily believes 
"that said invention is worth about one hundred dollars per 
" annum for each machine. 

"That this invention is not only a great beneSt, not only in 
" the burring and carding, but the advantage extends over the 
"spinning, weaving, and finishing, as the burrs left in under 
" the old burring machines obstructed all the other operations 
" to a greater or less extent. 



30 

"That lio does verily believe there has not beea a more im- 
" portant invention brought before the public, regarding the 
" woolen interests particularly ; and he does verily believe that 
•'an exten?iion of said patent would be an act of justice." 

This witness also states that he is acquainted witla 
your petitioner, and believes that I had exercised due 
diligence ia introducing said inventions into public use, 
and had failed to receive a suitable remuneration for 
said inventions. 

JOHN EDDY of New York, states, in an affidavit 
sworn to by him, on the 9th day of March, 1859, that 
he had been acquainted with your petitioner since 1S47 ; 
that for about nine years prior to 1859 he had been 
more or less engaged in putting my burred 
machines in operation in different manafactoring estab- 
lishments throughout the country ; " that they have 
given universal and unqualified satisfaction, and that he 
does verily believe that the sale of machines by Kins- 
man & Goddard, at almost their cost price, has inter- 
fered very much with the profits of said Parkhurst, 
because the raachines are so very durable." 

"Thit this deponent is aware of several instances where 
" said burring machines have been running for more than 
"ten years, and that without any perceptible wear on the 
"cylinders, and without any repairs." 

That ho has also used said machines as a woolen 

manufacturer, and that 

" He is able to testify to tlie fact, that the benefit resulting 
"from the invention of said Parkhurst extends itself through 
"the whole woolen manufacture. In the first place, the burr- 
"ing machines last much longer than any previously devised; 
"second, the wool is more thoroughly freed from foreign 
"matter, efteoting; third, a partial carding of the wool; fourth 



31 

"tlie canls wofir longer, ami are not obstructed witli foreign 
" substances, fifth, the roving and spinning is more perfect, 
" being freer from burrs and substances, causing it to break ; 
" sixth, the same may be said relative to the weaving ; and 
"lastly, the finished goods are so much more perfect that 
'■one person will pick over and remove any burrs from a piece 
"of cloth in the time usually occupied by two hands to do the 
"same work under the old machines. 

" And, in conclusion, tliis deponent does verily believe that 
" the benefits resulting from said Parkhurst's surface-tooth 
''cylinder machines is so great that manufacturers would pay 
" one thousand dollars for each machine sooner than be without 
" it; and, in fact, he does verily believe that many parties would 
" abandon the woolen business sooner than go back to the 
'' machine in use before the invention of Parkhurst's." 



JOHN M. PHILLIPS, of Newark, New Jersey, of 
the firm of Hewes & Phillips, doing a large business in 
that place, states, in an affidavit sworn to by him on the 
15th day of March, 1S59, that his firm has manufiic- 
tured burring machines, under said patent, for your peti- 
tioner, and also for Israel Kinsman : 

" That he believes said machines will last considerably 
" longer than the term of the patent (fourteen years), and that lie 
" does not know uf any surface-tooth cylinders tliat have been 
"made under said patent which are either worn out or proved 
" IneiBcient in ♦he burring or cleaning of fibrous substances. 

"That this deponent believes saidParkhurst truly deserv- 
" ing of an extension of the above letters patent, in view of the 
" value tlie invention has been to the public, and the difficulties 
"experienced by said Parkhurst in obtaining a remuneration 
" therefrom." • 

JOSIAH SEAGRAVES, a woolen manufacturer of 
Brooklyn, New York, states, in an affidavit sworn to by 



32 



him on the 19th day of March, 1859, that he has had in 
use several of the Parkhurst burring machines ever since 
1 849 — ten years ago — and 

"That the cylmders are still in good worlcing order. 

"That he believes the invention to be of great value to the 
"public, because tiie whole woolen manufacture has been ben- 
" efited thereby." 

That when the burrs are removed from the wool by 
said machines, 

"The wool is clearer and more easily operated upon by all the 
" other machines, and the cloth produced is greatly improved." 

" That all the raacliinery he is acquainted with, as being in 
" use before the date of the Parkhurst patent, is utterly ineffi- 
" cient, compared with his, for removing the burrs and other 
" substances from the wool." 

JESSE EDDY, a manufacturer of woolen goods, par- 
ticularly of fine cassimeres, at Fall River, iu the State of 
Massachusetts, in his affiJavit, sworn to on the 21st day 
of March, 1859 , states : 

" That he has had six of Parkhurst's burring machines, made 
" under the above patent, in use for about nine years, and that 
" the cylinders are in apparently as good condition as ever ; that 
" he does verily believe said surface-tooth cylinders will not 
" wear out in twenty years, or become worn to such an extent 
" as to prevent them operating correctly on the wool. 

" That the said burring machines are indispensable to the 
" woolen manufacturers ; that in all machines which this de- 
" ponent used before the introduction of Parkhurst's cylinders, 
" and in all machines he had knowledge of that were used by 
" others, the wool went directly into the carding machines, 
" and all the burrs were torn up and mingled witli the wool. 

" That the benefits resulting from the use of said Parkhurst's 
" burring machine consequently extended through the whole 



33 



" woolen manufacture, because the siaple is so effectually freed 
" from the burrs and foreign substances that all the subsequent 
" operations of carding, roving, weaving, and finishing, can be 
" carried on with so much more facility on account of the ab- 
" sence of said burrs, and from the fact that the surface-tooth 
" cylinder removes the pieces of foreign substances whole, while 
" if the same were allowed to remain they would be broken 
" up and dispersed among the wool, greatly to its injury. 

" That this deponent does verily believe that all manufactn- 
" rers that have used the said surface-tooth burring cylinders 
" would sooner pay one thousand dollars far each machine than 
" be obliged to go back to the best machines this deponent 
" knows of, that were in use before the invention of the Park- 
" hurst. 

NELSON CLEMENTS, a merchant in the city of New 
York, states in his affidavit, sworn to on the 23d day of 
March, 1859, that he had been engaged in the cotton 
business for about five years : 

" That in the selling of cotton he had facilities for knowing the 
" market price of various staples ; that he had sold cotton 
" ginned by the ordinary saw-gins, and the same cotton ginned 
" with Parkhurst surface-tooth cylinders, and that said cot- 
" ton commanded in the market from three-quarters to one 
" cent per pound advance upon the same staple ginned by ths 
" saw-teeth." 

Prior to the extension of my original patent, May 1, 
1859, Francis Morris, Charles A. Bulkley, Joseph V. 
Smedley, Nelson Clements, and Alexander McConockie 
had become owners of certain interests or rights in 
several of my patents relating to woolen and cotton 
machinery, or had been more or less concerned in build- 
ing machines under said patents, or some of them ; and 
said Morris had also advanced various sums of money to 
said Bulkley, Smedley, Clements, and McConockie, 
which had been expended in building cotton-gins. It, 
3 



34 

therefore, became important that the respective rights, 
obligations, and interests of all the parties concerned 
under said patents should be ascertained and provided 
for. Accordingly, an instrument in writing, bearing 
date the 1st day of August, 1859, was signed and exe- 
cuted by and between said Morris, Bulkley, Smedley, 
Clements, McConockie, and myself, providing that all 
said rights and property, claims, and demands of the 
aforesaid parties respectively should become vested 
in said parties as Trustees, with such powers and sub- 
ject to such duties as therein provided ; said parties 
thereby forming a joint stock company, and providing 
for the organization and conduct of its affairs. My said 
extended patent of May 1, 1859, was included in this 
arrangement, and conveyed, in trust, with the other 
patents and interests mentioned in said instrument. 

The rights, titles, property, claims, and demands of 
said parties therein mentioned were considered as 
divided into four thousand parts or shares ; of these 
Morris was entitled to eight hundred and fifty-three 
shares, Bulkley to eight hundred and fifty-two, Smed- 
ley to four hundred and twenty-six, Clements to four 
hundred and twenty-six, McCouookie to four hundred 
and twenty-six, and your petitioner to one thousand 
and seventeen shares. Out of these shares nine hun- 
dred were to be disposed of by the Trustees, for the bene- 
fit of the association, and to raise funds to be applied 
for the purposes of the trust. Of this amount Morris 
contributed one hundred and ninety-three shares, Bulk- 
ley one hundred and ninety-two shares, Smedley 
ninety-six shares, Clements ninety-six shares, McCo- 
nockie ninety-six shares, and your petitioner three hun- 



36 

dred and seventeen shares, leaving my interest therein 
only seven hundred shares. 

Pursuant to said deed of trust, the Trustees therein 
named, on the 8th day of August, 1859, entered into an 
agreement with the Atlas Manufacturing Company, a 
corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
New York, whereby that company was granted an 
exclusive license and right to manufacture and sell 
machines under said patents for the term of two 
years from the date thereof. In consideration of 
which, said company was to pay to said Trustees, 
in trust for the parties concerned, fifty dollars for 
every No. 1 burring machine made by them under said 
patent, dated May 1, 1845 ; forty-five dollars for every 
machine known as No. 2 machines, which they should 
make ; and forty dollars for eveiy machine known as No. 3 
machines ; which payments were not required to be made 
before the expiration of three months after the receipt by 
said company of the price for which the machines had been 
sold respectively under this agreement, which expired 
August 8, 1861. Not more than fifty burring machines 
were made and sold, and my share of the profits amount- 
ed to very little if anything. As my patent had not 
yet been reissued, and the defects in the specification 
and claims corrected, it was thought not desirable to 
prosecute suits for infringements of it until this was done, 
and consequently Infringements were continued with 
impunity during most of that time. But all my availa- 
ble means were employed in endeavoring to make collec- 
tions and settlements for infringements, yet with only 
very limited success, and the result was that substan- 
tially nothing was realiz ed by me from my inventions. 



36 

Oa the 18th of April, 1861, about four months preced- 
ingthe expiration of this agreement, I had transferred all 
my right, title, and interest in the extended term of the 
patent, which had then been reissued, to Francis Morris, 
Charles A. Bulldey, and Robert W. Russell. I was then 
employed as agent to take charge of the manufacture 
and sale of these machines, and to attend to making col- 
lections and settlements under said patent for infringe- 
ments thereof, which business I have attended to almost 
constantly, ever since. I was to be paid a salary for 
these services, but the amount I vs^as to receive was 
not agreed upon, and was also to have one-half of the 
net proceeds accruing from the manufacture and sale of 
the machines, and one-half of the net proceeds derived 
from collections of infringements of said patent. One- 
sixth of this latter amount was to be paid by me to said 
Russell in consideration of his legal services in connec- 
tion with the said patent. My object in making said 
transfer of the patent to Morris, Bulkley & Russell, 
was to enable me to raise money to pay for litigabions 
and other legal proceedings necessary under said patent, 
and accordingly they advanced and paid large sums of 
money for these purposes. 

At the time the patent was reissued, in February, 
186J, claims to the amount of many thousand dollars 
were outstanding against parties who had infringed the 
original patent, in various parts of the country. But the 
patent having been reissued, these claims could not be 
enforced by legal proceedings under said reissued patent; 
consequently all outstanding claims for infrmgements 
prior to February 12, 1861, the date of said reissued 
patent, had to be given up and abandoned. 



37 



As before stated, the litigations and proceedings 
against infringers of said reissued patent have been 
incessant and widely extended ever since it was granted, 
many of which still remain undetermined, and must be 
carried on to completion, if anything is realized out of 
them. Consequently the litigation expenses have been 
enormous, amounting up to this time, as nearly as I can 
now ascertain, to about twenty-two thousand and sev- 
enty-five dollars. 

About nine hundred and twenty-two burring 
machines have been made and sold, under said reissued 
patent, since it was assigned to Morris, Bulkley & 
Russell, in April, 1861. The price for which these 
machines have sold has varied^from seventy-five dollars to 
one hundred and twenty-five dollars each, and a few of 
the larger ones have sold as high as one hundred and 
thirty-five dollars. The cost of building the machines 
during this time has constantly varied, owing to frequent 
changes in the cost of labor and material, but it was 
generally calculated to i-ealize an advance of about 
twenty-five dollars on each machine, over their cost 
price. This would be less than a reasonable manufac- 
turer's profit on machinery of this description. But it 
was rendered necessary to sell the machines at this low 
price in consequence of large competition in the 
market, occasioned by the great number of infringing 
machines which were constantly and rapidly being 
made and sold by said Goddard, who sold his machines, 
as he alleges, without reference to any patent fee, but 
simply for the usual manufacturer's profit, which he 
claims, in his account filed with the Master on the 
20th day of February last, is fifty per cent. 



t 



'\U.pf 



■~J 



38 

There has been collected from users of infringing 
machines, since the reissue of said patent, for infringe- 
ments thereof and for licenses under it, as nearly as I 
can now ascertain, about thirteen thousand five hundred 
dollars. 

During the same time, a sum 'equal to about twen- 
ty-two thousand and seventy-five dollars was paid out, 
as before stated, for litigations and proceedings under 
said patent. The amount received from infringers, and 
for license fees under the reissued patent, is, therefore, 
about eight thousand five hundred and seventy-five dol- 
lars less than the sum paid out for expenses in conducting 
litigations and proceedings to stop infringements of it. 
It is estimated that there are over six thousand sets of 
carding machines now in use in the United States, one 
set generally consisting of a first and second breaker ane 
finisher. My burring apparatus is used on the first break- 
er of nearly every set of these machines, in combination 
therewith ; and is uniformly regarded by woolen manu- 
facturers as indispensable in preparing the wool for the 
cards. 

The value of this buiTing apparatus on each carding 
machine, in preparing the wool for the cards, cannot 
now be less than one dollar per day for each machine, 
in the saving and advantage which the manufacturer 
derives from its use over all other means for burring 
wool. The benefit and advantage wliich the public 
derive from it, as applicable to woolen manufactures, 
estimating the amount of saving caused by said inven- 
tion at ab»»t fitly cents per day on each of the six thou- 
sand sets of carding machines in use in the United 
States, cannot be much, if any, less than three thou- 



39 

sand dollars per day, amounting in one year, of three 
hundred days, to the sum of nine hundred thousand 
dollars, and in seven years, to the enormous sum of 
six million three hundred thousand dollars. I regard 
the above sums as less, rather than over, a fair and legit- 
imate estimate of the present value of said inventions 
to the public, so far as relates to woolen manufactures 
in this country ; and without taking into account, the 
public value of the invention as applicable to cotton. 

Owing to the continued litigations and proceedings 
under said patent for infringements thereof, since its 
extension, and to the uncertain amount of. expenditures 
which would be required to complete the same, and 
because it could not be ascertained what amount, if any, 
of damages and license fees would be recovered, settle- 
ments have not been made between said Morris, Bulii- 
ley, Russell, and myself since the transfer of said patent 
to them in April, 1S61, and the amount due me, as my 
share of the net profits, if any, derived from the manu- 
facture and sale of the machines, and from collections of 
infringers under said patent, has not been ascertained. 
But, from the foregoing statements, your petitioner 
would respectfully submit to your Honorable Bodies, 
that it clearly appears that he has failed to obtain from 
the use of said invention " a reasonable remuneration 
for the time, ingenuity, and expense bestowed upon 
the same, and the introduction thereof into use ; " and 
that this failure has not been owing to any neglect 
or fault on his part, but to causes which he could not 
foresee, avoid, or prevent, and which were entirely 
beyond his control. 

He therefore prays that your Honorable Bodies will, 



40 

by a suitable Act of Congress, renew and extend said 
patent for the term of seven years from and after the 
1st day of May, 1866; or that you will, by an Act of 
Congress, duly approved, authorize and empower the 
Honorable Commission of Patents of the United States, 
on due proceedings had before him, to renew and 
extend the same for said term of seven years from and 
after said 1st day of May, 1866. 

S. R PARKHURST. 



State op New York, ) . 
City and County of New York, y 

On this 15th day of March, 1866, before me per- 
sonally appeared Stephen R. Parkhurst, the above- 
named petitioner, and made solemn oath that he has 
read the foregoing petition subscribed by him, and 
knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of 
his own knowledge, except as to such matters as are 
therein stated on information and belief, and as to those 
matters he believes it to be true. 

[L.S.] MILES B. ANDRUS, 

Notary Public, 

In and for the city and county of New York. 



I U.S. s 

5 In. ReT. Stamp, t 
1 Five Cents. J 



YA lfi386 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



018 534 556 7 • 



/ 



